August 21, 2012

Can you find it in your heart to forgive him? If you forgive him, should you say, nevertheless: Get out, you're hurting your party right now, and it's a big distraction? It's a wrong irreparable in a short time span. Now, you've got until 5 p.m. to get out of the race.

Now, I think Akin should drop out. It's not fair for him to hold the spotlight, and he's hurt his entire party. From the party's point of view, every day that's about him — and the war-on-women topic rape — is a day that not about the economy and what Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan might do to save us from the depredations of the Democrats.

And yet... would the Democrats oust one of their own because he said one thing wrong? The GOP got played into destroying George Allen over the inane word "macaca." Democrats have their ways of disparaging Republicans for being racist/sexist/homophobe/whatever. It's not like they're going to stop. Each time they take a guy out it creates incentive to take another guy out. We can ruin X, like we ruined Allen and Akin.... It's a fun game... for them.

Except, the Democrats/MSM desperately want him to stay in. They invested $1.5 million in primary ads to ensure he would be nominated. Democrats crossed over to vote for him. The PPP poll out today which still gives him a +1 advantage over McCaskill is weighted R+9 (and when was the last time any poll anywhere oversampled Republicans?). Etc.

What are the right words to say in the right way that a woman has natural defense mechanisms against getting pregnant by rape, that if it really is rape, then a woman can't get pregnant?

It is NOT the words he used that is the problem, it is the very ideas behind the words that prove that Akin does not belong anywhere near the Senate. We have enough buffoons there now as it is.

And rather than continuing his Gollum act, clinging to his precious as if the nomination and public office were his private property, he needs to go now. This latest example of buffoonery with this "apology" is proof of that.

Republicans literally had to be coaxed into deciding it was OK to attack Weiner despite him sending photos of, uh, yeah, to women who were not his wife. Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy are heroes of the left despite their actual bad actions compared Akin's stupid comment. The right is either not as effective at tearing down the left, or the left is more forgiving. The left will engage in character assassination as soon as possible, hence why Moe Lane highlighted the creepy activity of Democrat partisans -setting up cameras to stalk candidates/politicians in their homes.-

Do not draw a "both sides do it" here when it is obvious that the scale and frequency are so far off.

Again, Akin said something incredibly stupid, but he did not say "then a woman can't get pregnant," he simply said it was rare. Which is the problem, what he -actually said- if you take the time to dissect it, is incredibly, terrifyingly stupid. But it is not the malicious "they all secretly wanted to be raped" that it has been spun into by the left. Which is why he must go; you can't say stupid, explosive things and then ask people to trust you not to keep saying stupid, explosive things that will be twisted to be nuclear bomb levels of stupidity instead of just, I dunno, huge bombs of stupidity.

The reason he is being driven out of Republican Paradise is not because he took a bite of the apple, it's because he talked with his mouth full, unseemly. Pieces of that rotten worm infested apple spewed every which way, revealing that the fruit was not sweet.

yashu said...Except, the Democrats/MSM desperately want him to stay in.

Exactly. It is ridiculous to blame the Democrats or the media for this one. It is the Republican establishment that is pushing him out because they fear how he, and by association, Ryan and the party will be perceived by the voters.

Akin's poorly formed comments: Clearly means exactly what they said and apply to all Republicans thinking something about legitimate rape.

Biden's poorly formed comments: Clearly means something different from what he said, does not apply to any Democrat besides Biden, and in no way is related to the actual words that he spoke.

This is why no one takes the left seriously. Yes, Akin is stupid. But, he's being treated so radically different from the way any one on the left ever is that I can't help but feel the feeding frenzy has nothing to do with what he said, but solely with the fact he's -R not -D.

Let's just say that he was sloppy with his wording, that it was in fact a problem of the wrong words used in the wrong way --

Do you really want someone this inarticulate writing our legislation? Are not our statutes f'ed up enough with poor wording? Do we really need jack-assery added on top of the typical incompetence that is displayed by our government experts?

Do you really want someone this inarticulate writing our legislation? Are not our statutes f'ed enough with poor wording? Do we really need jack-assery added on top of the typical incompetence that is displayed by our government experts?

Bender: I think he should be out; but I also think we can't allow what he said to be redefined, lied about, then used to smear Ryan/Romney, which is the next step in what Allie, Reasonable, and others are doing. I know this because they've done it the past two days, or so, have been proven to be wrong each day, then each new thread to trot out the same inaccuracies.

It's no longer about defending Akin's exact words, so much as pushing back the narrative trying to be formed about his stupidity. He should go away, but the left should not be able to lie about why he's going away.

Really? Because I don't recall Republicans celebrating as "lions of the Senate" men who, for instance, murdered a woman or who were a Grand Kleagle in the KKK.

Neither do I remember them staunchly defending a senator whose boyfriend ran a gay call-boy ring out of the senator's own apartment, nor excusing a pederast representative with a taste for young pages.

Republicans do their damndest to get rid of their bad apples. Democrats celebrate theirs.

Here’s an excerpt of a statement by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, supposedly taking Akin to task.

There is absolutely no veracity to the claim that “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to shut that whole thing down.” A woman who is raped has no control over ovulation, fertilization, or implantation of a fertilized egg (ie, pregnancy). To suggest otherwise contradicts basic biological truths.

Any person forced to submit to sexual intercourse against his or her will is the victim of rape, a heinous crime. There are no varying degrees of rape. To suggest otherwise is inaccurate and insulting and minimizes the serious physical and psychological repercussions for all victims of rape.

By using the term “forced to submit” rather than “without consent”, isn’t the ACO making the same “legitimate rape” distinction that Akin did to establish “varying degrees of rape”?

Moreover, did Akin really claim that the woman who is raped has “control” over her biological responses?

It is distressing to have it confirmed that Democrats (and especially the feminist subset) have so much problem with someone making a verbal blunder when just speaking about rape, but have no problem with an actual rapist as long as he promises to let them keep murdering their babies. Indeed, some feminists offer such rapists blow jobs to show how little they really care about rape and how much they appreciate abortion rights.

It's all about retaining the right to murder babies, I guess.

Just, please, feminists: don't pretend you have an ounce of compassion in your selfish being.

Was the PARTY so important when John Cornyn sent attornys to Alaska to help Murkowski after Joe Miller won the primary? Was the Party so important when the SRCC would not help Sharon Angle? The PARTY needs to get over itself and quit eating its own.

So Akin is another politician who said something stupid. It's right up there with the Vice President pulling the race card in a speech and the President referring to a sitting US Senator as a 'boy' who might get his ass kicked.

Then again Akin is some no name from the Show Me state but the President and Veep get a pass for being assholes. Same as it ever was.

He needs to go. Sell some used cars or something. The man is now a giant albatross.

Exactly. We've done enough defending idiot politicians simply because they are on "our team." Enough. No one should be obligated to continue holding this guy up. Let him collapse and fall into the dustbin.

The concern of the Republican establishment is what the average voter is going to think. This is how democracies work, politicians pandering to the average voter.

This only touches on the surface. The question is "why is it this way"?

Rather than pander to them, why not just say the truth? Don't get me wrong - I'm not necessarily picking sides in this, but if Mr. Akin truly believes this, he ought to back it up, the GOP ought to get the hell out of the way and let the residents of the state of Missouri decide.

My opinion is that it is chickenshit on the part of the GOP. It's apparently easier to be outraged than actually stand for something.

I'm so use of fake outrage, I didn't at first realize the gravity of what Akin said. But yeah, he really needs to step down because it is outrageous and misinformative.

Akin perverted two issues in one gaffe, he minimized the trauma of rape and then cited the biological response to stress to dismiss the question at hand. Women, especially if they have just ovulated and the egg is in the viable stage of 12-24 hours for conception indeed can and do get pregnant from rape.

I'm constantly defending the science behind Natural Family Planning. Now this guy, Akin comes out with a statement that is actually based on a fact (yet very very distorted), and people think it is a magic that ovulation is stalled due to only 'legitimate rape'.

Any type of stress can postpone ovulation in a woman and extended stress may create an anovulatory cycle (the trauma of rape, would be an example), if a woman has not yet ovulated. When I chart my fertility, I may also note stress (i.e. parent being hospitalized)within the cycle. It may or may NOT postpone ovulation, but a contributing factor.

"...I don't recall Republicans celebrating as "lions of the Senate" men who, for instance, murdered a woman or who were a Grand Kleagle in the KKK.

Neither do I remember them staunchly defending a senator whose boyfriend ran a gay call-boy ring out of the senator's own apartment, nor excusing a pederast representative with a taste for young pages.

Republicans do their damndest to get rid of their bad apples. Democrats celebrate theirs."

Now there was a buffoon who NEEDED TO GO regardless of what he said about Strom Thurmond. Thankfully, he did have decency to leave, but there were still people out there, people who knew that he was a complete jackass buffoon, who were nevertheless defending him in the Thurmond affair simply because he was "one of us," all the while whining and crying about the double standard and how Dems are never held to account for the stupid things they say.

But the truth is that Trent Lott needed to go before he entered the room to say what he said about Thurmond. He was a buffoon before he said it, he was a buffoon while he said it, and he was a buffoon after he said it.

There are times when, even if he is on "our team," you just need to kick the guy off the field. Especially since there are better people to take his place.

You're right. We should have IQ tests for everyone who wants to run for political office!

YES!!!

And....tests to see if they understand the Constitution, are actually literate, have at least a rudimentary knowledge of economics, math, history and geography. Biology to understand that chocolate milk isn't actually produced by brown cows. More recently, Rep. John Salazar (D-Colorado) related this anecdote: “You know, when I was debating what became the 2008 Farm Bill, I had a member of the Ag Committee actually ask me if chocolate milk really comes from brown cows. I asked if he was joking and he assured me he wasn’t.” A member of the Agriculture Committee? /FACEPALM

Maybe even some physics too, so they can understand the the island of Guam really won't tip into the ocean if everyone runs to one side.

Perhaps each political critter should at the least be required to take the citizenship test that is administered to applicants for American citizenship. Except for all the illegal aliens of course, who are given a free pass. (Pass go, collect 200 dollars and a free citizenship card.)

"My opinion is that it is chickenshit on the part of the GOP. It's apparently easier to be outraged than actually stand for something."

-- Nope. When someone does something that makes your group look bad, you should toss them out or force them to apologize and suffer some consequences. I mean, Democrats don't want us saying things like "propositioning minors for anonymous, no strings attached sex" is a core Democrat belief, so they have demanded the Democrat who did that drop out. Because, there are some bridges too big for some no name to cross.

"Even a perfectly healthy woman with perfect fertility may occasionally experience a delayed ovulation during times of high stress or if she becomes ill during the pre-ovulatory phase, even if fertile mucus production has already begun. If this is the case, the mucus may dry up temporarily without reaching a true Peak, or mucus production may simply continue for a few extra days before proceeding to a Peak. Therefore, it is important to learn to recognize a real Peak pattern and be alert to signs that ovulation has not yet occurred. A true Peak is usually characterized by a minimum of three days of fertile-type mucus that displays a changing, developing pattern ending in a slippery sensation, changing abruptly to a sensation of dryness or dampness. If ovulation is delayed by illness or stress and mucus production stops, it will usually resume within a few days of recovery."-----------

No the woman does not control it as a conscious choice in her head, it is more of a reproductive response she has no control over. She can only observe and monitor.

It's not that he said something stupid and wrong - candidates do that all the time, especially on economics, law, and science - it's that he said it about women. Women are just too tender and need to be protected from this. No forgiving, no resolution, just hang on to the conflict at all costs. The Democrats really are the woman's party, if you are that common kind of woman.

It hard to imagine something similar that he could say about men that would have this effect, and if he did, women would argue that it was unimportant.

There are a lot of pro-life people who believe that women have some kind of natural defense against conceiving from rape. They usually claim it has something to do with adrenaline. So quite a few people have been defending his comment.

I do not agree that Akin misspoke. Plenty of other politicians believe things of this sort, on the right and on the left.

Because he is known to hold this belief and others equally stupid, lots of Democrats voted for him in the primary, and his opponent is trying to keep him in the election because her campaign already the bought the ads.

To be fair to that no-name Democrat, the boy, while a minor by age, was above the age of consent. So maybe when I called him a minor that was a bit misleading. He also wasn't specifically propositioned, it was a Craigslist ad, if I recall. So it was general purpose, really.

Seriously. Everyone needs a little man/woman sitting on their shoulder to filter what comes out of their mouth. Before you speak.....THINK!

Politicians are just like sales people or in my case 20 years as a financial advisor trying to persuade people to take actions.

"How will it sound to the people I'm talking to if I say xxxxx?" "Is there a better way to phrase this?" "Should I EVEN say this?" "Will it be offensive or helpful?" "Does this statement help me advance my position.?"

and most importantly for politicians...."Is this a trick question?"

THINK. Before you say stupid stuff. Like....You didn't build that!!

Now it is too late for Akin. His little man must have been on vacation and he needs to go away with him.

I just hope we can get to 20 trillion in debt before the next time some idiot says something stupid about abortion.

Thanks, EMD. Getting excited about Akin instead of keeping the focus on the economy and the $16 trillion national debit...that's what the GOP must NOT do. Do we really care if Akin understands human reproduction if he votes against spending bills?

Folks, let's get clear here. The problem isn't what Akins said or what others say about him. It's what he meant. He meant that if the rape is truly unwanted, there's a significant chance the woman's body will prevent impregnation or spontaneously abort, so that this strengthens the case for an outright ban on abortion. He meant that in any case, surely God wants the woman to bear the rapist's child, and this knowledge should override the woman's desire not only among his family and friends but for every woman regardless of evidence of crime, religious belief, or opinions of voters. Is this what the GOP stands for? Is this what the GOP is afraid to repudiate? Is this where it wants to draw a land in the sane, to show it won't get pushed around? Democrats are justified in putting it to the test.

"He meant that if the rape is truly unwanted, there's a significant chance the woman's body will prevent impregnation or spontaneously abort, so that this strengthens the case for an outright ban on abortion."

-- Wrong. He said that even when that fails to happen (because it is rare), the "punishment" should be on the rapist, not the child. Look, he said a stupid thing, but let's not -lie- about the stupid thing he said.

Now, I don't know whether being raped has any actual cause for the low rate of pregnancies (statistically), though there may be a cause. Who knows? But, the point that he was trying to make has nothing to do with what was posited there.

He's an idiot. But he's not going around saying that women who get pregnant could not have been truly raped.

There's a big obvious double standard.It heavily favors the establishment which is very liberal.Liberals rarely have to sacrifice themselves if they fuck up. (And even then they just fail their way into some other well-paid sinecure or at least not do any prison time. Corzine cough Weiner.)Conservatives have to sacrifice.These are the facts.This Akin needs to face the facts honestly and do the right thing. There are two nitwits in this race btw, but the double standard will favor the liberal nitwit. Akin cannot win. The conservative base will not respect his prioritizing his personal fight, the middles will be irritated and unnerved by his insane comments, and the libs will automatically vote for the liberal nitwit.

He meant that if the rape is truly unwanted, there's a significant chance the woman's body will prevent impregnation or spontaneously abort

And the implied offensive part of this is that if the woman gets pregnant from rape, this means that she sorta, kinda must have "wanted" it in some way? The SLUT!.

Frankly, he should have not answered or pontificated on this question. Talking about abortion is like walking blindfolded through a minefield. You are bound to step on something and it will blow up in your face.

When someone does something that makes your group look bad, you should toss them out or force them to apologize and suffer some consequences.

Only our side does this. See Ted Kennedy, Biden, Robert Byrd.

I mean, Democrats don't want us saying things like "propositioning minors for anonymous, no strings attached sex" is a core Democrat belief, so they have demanded the Democrat who did that drop out. Because, there are some bridges too big for some no name to cross.

For starters, the rep you referred to was NOT asked to step down except by Republicans. So this may be a bad analogy.

All that aside, Democrats know we WON'T say stuff like this. That's why they keep winning the media war. I say stop giving in to them and take the fight to them.

The left controls the debate in this country, and the stupid party lets it happen.

"It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”

Sorry, Jay. I accurately characterized his statement. No point lying about it.

Gabriel, I and I think Jay agree that Akin distorted science. I'm not, and I don't think Jay is asserting what Akin is said to be true, but rather this misinformed statement came out of something that is indeed has science to it.

By the way Gabriel Hanna, if Akin had actually said "women have a natural defence against conceiving due to rape" it probably would have been better since it would have been both clearer and indefensible.

@Jay:Buck Louis says there is early evidence that catecholamines released in response to this type of stress reduce blood flow, which slows the passage of the fertilized egg to the uterus.

Even if true, the egg is fertilized, the woman already conceived, and the "hard" pro-life position is that she's pregnant with a baby at that point and doing anything to that egg is murder. And your quote, even if well supported, says nothing about whether that fertilized egg is more or less likely to become a baby.

Since you've already conceded my initial point I'm not sure what else we have to argue about, since Akin wasn't saying what Buck Louis said.

Gabriel, not to be picky with words. "Ovulated", not Ovulating, just because it sounds like woman are releasing multiple eggs over time instead on just one. But I totally agree with you, once you ovulated the egg is released and the 12-24 hour time frame for conception is there. Trauma or no trauma.

@Rennee: this misinformed statement came out of something that is indeed has science to it.

No. What he said has no resemblance to anything backed by scientific fact. You have to really reach to try to equate anything he said with anything you've said, or Jay has quoted. It's on the same level as "the Internet is a series of tubes".

And the implied offensive part of this is that if the woman gets pregnant from rape, this means that she sorta, kinda must have "wanted" it in some way? The SLUT!.

No, that is not a logical read of what he said. That's hysteria. What's the point of twisting someone's words when what they've said is bad enough? Are people on the left afraid they weren't bad enough?

Gabriel, You're right. I admit I have no evidence that Akin attributed his statement to what I and Jay pointed out. I'm just making the charitable assumption, I guess in some sort of good faith of his massive idiotic screw-up. That's all.

KO: "He meant that if the rape is truly unwanted, there's a significant chance the woman's body will prevent impregnation or spontaneously abort, so that this strengthens the case for an outright ban on abortion."

Matthew Sablan: "Wrong. He said that even when that fails to happen (because it is rare), the "punishment" should be on the rapist, not the child. Look, he said a stupid thing, but let's not -lie- about the stupid thing he said."

i didn't lie. He said both. I acknowledged both. But can Akins acknowledge that some women who were impregnated by rape might feel that a lot of the "punishment" is on them, and not want it? You, Akin and others are totally entitled to convince such a woman to go ahead, and even to apply moral pressure. But Akins went further; he means to apply the pressure of the state -- imprisonment and the like -- to back the moral pressure, even though only a minority of voters would agree and a majority would regard it as obscurantism. Does the GOP want to associate with that sentiment? Perhaps, because some sector of supporters, including perhaps you, will say "if you don't, then I won't vote for you, no matter how much I prefer your views on other issues." Like I said, the Dems are justified in putting the GOP to the test.

Statistically significant reductions in the probability of conception across the fertile window during the first cycle attempting pregnancy were observed for women whose salivary concentrations of α-amylase were in the upper quartiles in comparison with women in the lower quartiles

If you should happen to meet someone--anyone--who doesn't have a few foolish notions about sex, ask him to say a prayer for me....Like a lot of people I have never pondered the procreative probabilities of rape. Who even thinks about such things? Akin gave the wrong answer and now he must be banished from public life......As others have noted, a thought crime about rape is considered worse than the crime of rape among Democrats. Also, as others have noted, only a truly clumsy and inept politician would let himself become embroiled in such a contretemps. I think Akin should resign and the Republican party will be the stronger for it....To those who wish a further snort of indignation, I offer the example of Eldridge Cleaver. He was at one time a militant rapist. When he spoke as a radical at Harvard, he did not get booed for his history of rapism. But when he later became a Republican and appeared at Harvard, that he got booed for. This demonstrates convincingly that Democrats consider being a Republican is a far more opprobius state than being a rapist.

Kent said,"Folks, let's get clear here. The problem isn't what Akins said or what others say about him. It's what he meant. He meant that if the rape is truly unwanted, there's a significant chance the woman's body will prevent impregnation or spontaneously abort, so that this strengthens the case for an outright ban on abortion. He meant that in any case, surely God wants the woman to bear the rapist's child, and this knowledge should override the woman's desire not only among his family and friends but for every woman regardless of evidence of crime, religious belief, or opinions of voters. Is this what the GOP stands for? Is this what the GOP is afraid to repudiate? Is this where it wants to draw a land in the sane, to show it won't get pushed around? Democrats are justified in putting it to the test."

8/21/12 11:35 AM

Ding ding ding, Kent hits the target! IS this what the GOP stands for? I inserted his entire comment, it is worth repeating. Anybody listening?

@Jay: Just take a minute to ponder the First Law of Holes and ask yourself, is this guy really worth the effort?

Nothing you are citing supports ANYTHING Akin said. For example,you haven't explained what "stress" is and you are citing a study that examines stress and fertility all across a cycle, while trying to support your contention about a traumatic event, short in duration, which is not the same thing and prolonged or repeated stress, and furthermore says nothing about the intensity.

If a women is abused over a long period of time she will have trouble conceiving and bringing a baby to term. Yes. This is not what Akin was talking about at all, and it has nothing to do with a normal, happy, healthy woman conceiving due to a rape.

The willingness to put aside someone who makes such mistakes and being willing to take words seriously is precisely why Republicans are in better shape than Democrats.

If Democrats had the integrity and real care for those they say they care about they would likewise be ruthless about cleaning house of the corruption, entrenched idiocy and other such problems.

Akin should step aside not because it is fair or because that is what Democrats would do. He should step aside because it is the right thing to do, having become a distraction and shown himself not ready to participate in national debates as a Senator.

Biden, of course, is no different.

But, the whole point of this presidential election is whether we want men like Biden making decisions. Democrats do. Republicans don't.

Akin has to go, precisely because Republicans should be better and seek to be better.

Democrats need to be better too, but they're not willing to face up to that. They will excuse rape. They will excuse stupidity. They will excuse corruption. They will excuse the brutalization of the poor and needy. They will excuse anything if it done by someone they think is on their side.

Both parties have examples of such attitudes. Only one party at this point, though, has a renewal movement that seeks to oust those who aren't good enough and find those who are better.

Pretty much the entirety of the GOP, conservatives, social conservatives, and Tea Partiers have all denounced him, cut his funding, and are pressuring him to step aside. Unfortunately, that decision is still up to him.

But I think it's clear that the GOP and conservatives have taken a stand, and it's one opposed to Akin.

I just can't believe he's that stupid. Seems to me it's probably more along the lines of the word jumble like what Dan Quayle trapped himself in with, "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is."

I'm not getting how running him out and giving the nomination to someone else who never won (and may have actually been a loser in the primary) to run in his stead improves anything. That's not democracy.

Now if the Democratic thought control-public statement apparatus get just get the GOP to insert in their official platform a Constitutional amendment outlawing abortion without exceptions in cases of rape or incest....

@William:.Like a lot of people I have never pondered the procreative probabilities of rape. Who even thinks about such things?

Akin was referring to a piece of disinformation that has been propagated by irresponsible people in the pro-life movement for as long as I can remember. You learn a lot about him because he said it. You know who and what he's been choosing to listen to.

There is a meaningful, powerful case against elective abortion that can be made without lies.

IS this what the GOP stands for? I inserted his entire comment, it is worth repeating. Anybody listening?

This is incredibly dishonest, AllieOop, even by your standards. You know damn well that it isn't what the GOP stands for, otherwise they'd be saying flat-out that that's what they stand for.

Allie's comment is a perfect example of why we can't win by playing the left's game in this. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever what the GOP does, because the left will react in this fashion. At least if we fight them back, our message as a whole may have a better chance of getting out.

I live in MO, and was distressed when this guy won the primary. Claire Mac's pacs ran a ton of ads attacking all three Republican candidates, but even I could see that her ads against Akin were actually designed to help him win.

Akin must go and I will be happy to see him out, but the one who will most miss him if he goes is Claire Mac.

BTW, Allie, your first commment about the fruit of the Republican paradise was a particularly cruel and unsupported swipe at the entire party for one idiot's comments which the party quickly disavowed. I wonder how long your Waukesha Co. republican friends would stay your friends if they knew you wrote and think like this.

Gabriel Hanna said... @Jay: Just take a minute to ponder the First Law of Holes and ask yourself, is this guy really worth the effort?

No, Akin is not.

Here is all I'm saying.

I am guessing that "doctors" in some form of conversation told him that it is more difficult for a woman to get pregnant in a stressful situation. Even possibly that fight or flight triggers Alpha-amylase which could delay or prevent pregancy.

"Is this what the GOP stands for? Is this what the GOP is afraid to repudiate? Is this where it wants to draw a land in the sane, to show it won't get pushed around? Democrats are justified in putting it to the test."

That's why there is a growing chorus of people begging him to drop out.

I do. Cf. the word "legitimate." The implication is that if the woman's body doesn't "shut it down" (and a pregnancy ensues), the "rape" wasn't a "legitimate rape"-- it wasn't rape rape.

I.e., her body must have wanted it, so in some way she must have wanted it.

No, because he said it sometimes didn't work.He was talking about the trauma of rape "shutting down" the possibility of a pregnancy.The opposite thought would be that some rapes aren't as traumatizing.

Which, if we are forced to discuss that, is no doubt true.

That doesn't mean a woman sort of wanted that rape. I'm saying this in the era of "If a college student is too drunk to give consent, that's rape".

Kent said,"Folks, let's get clear here. The problem isn't what Akins said or what others say about him. It's what he meant. He meant that if the rape is truly unwanted, there's a significant chance the woman's body will prevent impregnation or spontaneously abort, so that this strengthens the case for an outright ban on abortion. He meant that in any case, surely God wants the woman to bear the rapist's child, and this knowledge should override the woman's desire not only among his family and friends but for every woman regardless of evidence of crime, religious belief, or opinions of voters. Is this what the GOP stands for? Is this what the GOP is afraid to repudiate?

Btw, I'm not denying all rational basis to Akin's alleged fact. I read some scientific research suggesting that women are more likely to get pregnant in passionate extramarital affairs, all else being equal. If so, it shouldn't surprise that they would be less likely to get pregnant after rape. But again, here is the question for the GOP. Should that observation justify the use of imprisonment and other armed means of the state to prevent a raped woman from having an abortion regardless of her religious beliefs, evidence of rape, or the beliefs of the great majority of the voters? I applaud Romney for saying no right away.

DBQ - someone on Ace's blog posted that every GOP candidate, from presidential wannabe to undercommissioner to the subsecretary of the planning board for garden gnomes should be asked one question:

"What is the media's purpose in interviewing you?"

ANY answer other than "To lie about me" would then be cause for dismissal. The MFM is worse than a propaganda agency; they are actual, active enemies of the Republic and should be treated as such.

Romney tells the press not to ask certain questions? Good for him. As far as I'm concerned, he should paraphrase Dr. Johnson and call them a race of murderers, liars and thieves who should be grateful for any favor the GOP grants them short of hanging.

CWJ, most of them would agree, they are social liberals and fiscal conservatives and Republicans, as I said yesterday, they do not like the influence the Religious Right has had on their party. Why would you think we never discussed it before? These are people who love money more than God.

The Republican party keeps bringing up social issues, my Waukesha County friends want to focus on the economy. Again they are socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Do you think that the whole of the Republican party are RR's?

"Akin was referring to a piece of disinformation that has been propagated by irresponsible people in the pro-life movement for as long as I can remember. You learn a lot about him because he said it. You know who and what he's been choosing to listen to."

Excuse me, I'm apart of that pro-life movement. I've never heard of Akin's point of view prior to this. NEVER.

I'm pro-life, well because of science. It's a hard walk to walk sometimes, but I can't deny science. Sorry.

Jay, no I cannot. I think GOP leaders are responding well and that this may prove a really beneficial "Sister Souljah" moment. I was directing my rhetorical question to commenters who were taking the enemy-of-my-attacking-enemy-is-my-friend approach.

I agree that Akin didn't mean it that way. But he made an if-then statement, and denying the consequent denies the antecedent, so it does imply that, unfortunately. If you put it to him that way I'm sure he would say that's not what he meant. Which is a good reason why people should study logic.

Inspector Callahan, the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said, "There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church." Allie and her ilk fall into that category. They perceive the GOP to be a party of neo-Confederates aching to throw the darkies back in chains and stuff womyn into breeding cages, so that's what they hate. Consider her friends' supposed whining about the evil Religious Right and its baleful influence on the party in that light.

No, because he said it sometimes didn't work.He was talking about the trauma of rape "shutting down" the possibility of a pregnancy.The opposite thought would be that some rapes aren't as traumatizing.

Which, if we are forced to discuss that, is no doubt true.

That doesn't mean a woman sort of wanted that rape.

But don't you see that implication remains? Okay, it's not a logically necessary entailment by totally rational Spock logic. (What about his remark was rational?) But it's still strongly suggested, given the connotation of the word "legitimate" (as opposed to somehow not legitimate rape), and of course the raw wound emotional sensitivity of the topic of rape.

If your body doesn't "shut it down" that means it was probably (to use your own word) "less traumatizing"... what do you think the emotional or psychological resonance of that is for someone who's been raped and gotten pregnant? You got pregant, so that proves it wasn't that traumatic? You didn't "shut it down," so statistically that means it was less likely to be a "legitimate rape"?

@Rennee:, I'm apart of that pro-life movement. I've never heard of Akin's point of view prior to this. NEVER.

I have many times, no doubt we run in different circles. The earliest I remember was about 25 years ago, it was an pro-life protester on the news asked about abortion in the case of rape, and she said that the stress and hormones would make that so unlikely as to not be worth considering.

Anyway, I doubt I would be considered part of the pro-life movement, except by the pro-choice movement--and vice versa. But I think there is something terribly wrong with a society in which a teenage girl cannot get her ears pierced, tattooed, or use a tanning bed without her parents' permission, yet she can get an abortion at taxpayer expense without them even being notified. I am sure you and I agree on that much.

He repeated a piece of misinformation and, trying to be delicate, used words that could be twisted. It might have been cleearer if he used Whoopi Goldberg's ruder "rape-rape," but either way it was no big deal.The Democrats are just overjoyed that it finally was a Republican that who put his foot in his mouth rather than one of their own as we have seen again and again over the last month.And this guy was just a candidate for office, not a sitting Vice-President, Minority Party Leader, or DNC chair.

Claire McCaskill, Democrat, doesn't seem to have a problem with him. OMG!!!!!!!!!!! : 0 IS THIS WHAT THE DNC STANDS FOR? OUTRAGE! http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/20/claire-mccaskill-these-national-republicans-certainly-are-meddlesome-in-trying-to-push-akin-out-of-the-race/

How about THIS? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2191164/Kerry-Gauthier-Democratic-lawmaker-called-resign-having-oral-sex-teen-bushes.html

Akin should step aside not because it is fair or because that is what Democrats would do. He should step aside because it is the right thing to do, having become a distraction and shown himself not ready to participate in national debates as a Senator.

But he's still fit to be a member of the House?

Republicans want him to step down because they want control of the Senate.

To be fair to representative King, I've never heard of a case of a child getting pregnant from incest or statutory rape either.Doesn't mean I don't believe it can happen, I'm just unaware of any such instance.

BTW, the only figure I could find online was that 1% of abortions are due to rape or incest.

Steve King link (1). Original report.King supports the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." It would ban Federal funding of abortions except in cases of forcible rape. Right now, Medicaid also covers abortions for victims of statutory rape or incest - for example, a 12 year old who gets pregnant.

Congressman King says he's not aware of any young victims like that.

"Well I just haven't heard of that being a circumstance that's been brought to me in any personal way, and I'd be open to discussion about that subject matter," he said.

Rep. Steve King, one of the most staunchly conservative members of the House, was one of the few Republicans who did not strongly condemn Rep. Todd Akin Monday for his remarks regarding pregnancy and rape. King also signaled why — he might agree with parts of Akin’s assertion.

King told an Iowa reporter he’s never heard of a child getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest.

“Well I just haven’t heard of that being a circumstance that’s been brought to me in any personal way,” King told KMEG-TV Monday, “and I’d be open to discussion about that subject matter.”

I think it's too bad people want to destroy this man. I see an opportunity to do a little educating.

I thought he simply misspoke when he said "legitimate rape." I can pretty easily forgive that kind of extemporaneous misspeaking (as well as stuff about putting y'all in chains). The point is to get down to the arguments people are making instead of playing "Gotcha."

Any type of stress can postpone ovulation in a woman and extended stress may create an anovulatory cycle

Absolutely. He probably heard something that was moderately true (stress can affect ability to get pregnant), and skewed it to something that really, really wasn’t correct. (The ‘legitimate’ thing, I’ve been assuming, refers to consensual sex between minors.) He’s a politician, stupidity is a flaw that far too many of them have. I have no objections to getting rid of the dumb ones on our side.

Here's a hint about "proof" and "assertions." If you make an assertion (Bob said "X") it is up to you to provide proof of this. It is not enough to just say: "GOOGLE, LOL!!!" If you can't be arsed to provide a link to an assertion, I can't be bothered to treat your assertion as legitimate. It's respectful to provide proof for your assertions.

Like, see how I sometimes provide links when I say things that might be hard to believe? Do that. It falls on the one -making the argument- to do the leg work, not the one listening.

I do, however, award purple penguin +1 Internet for his pwnage of Jay re: ltgtfy.com. But Google hits prove nothing. All those links from Google are saying the same thing: King did not say what purple penguin says he said, and 150,000 hits on people lying about it don't make it so. And so I deduct 5 Internet.

Allie, then your R friends are more tolerant than my "tolerant" D friends. But you made no such distinction between social liberals and fiscal conservatives in your previous posts. You tarred the entire party in the first post, and by citation in your second post.

So I don't care what you tell each other socially, I wondered what they would think of what you write here.

Excuse me, I'm apart of that pro-life movement. I've never heard of Akin's point of view prior to this. NEVER.

Thank you, Renee. I was going to ignore this twice made wholy fallacious assertion as it really deserves, but knocking it down is just as well.

In the 30 years I've been involved in the pro-life movement, including public policy advocacy and pro-life litigation, involving speaking with countless people and reading many, many articles, books, briefs, etc. by pro-lifers, I too have NEVER heard such an inane and idiotic claim before.

Not only does this buffoon harm the Republican cause, but he grievously harms the pro-life cause as well. But apparently, based on his statement I just heard on the news, Gollum Akin is hanging on to his precious. This proves that he does not really care about party, country, the pro-life cause, or the unborn; rather, he cares primarily about himself.

"Republicans want him to step down because they want control of the Senate."

Of course! But not only control, a certain kind of control.

Control for its own sake is why Reid is the Senate Majority Leader and not someone who actually has integrity.

House members represent their districts. If Akin's district wants to re-elect him, that's their choice. And if he really does mean to apologize, then the house is a great way for him to show it.

Power by any means possible--putting up with the corrupt or the idiotic-- should not be a pattern exhibited by either party. Right now, putting Akin aside actually helps both parties. Republicans could gain power by finding someone better than Akin to fill that spot. At the same time, removing someone like Reid helps the Democrats find men and women who are much better, have much more integrity, put up with less corruption.

Republicans got rightly blasted over the last couple of decades for having people in power who enabled corruption. Losing the Senate was amazing for pushing those people aside to help raise up better, stronger, sharper leaders.

@Bender, Renee:Yes, they have. Even though you personally may not have heard it, many in your movement have said it.

"Freind, during a verbal sparring session with Barry Steinhardt, executive director of the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the odds of a rape victim becoming pregnant are "one in millions and millions and millions." The reason, he asserted, was that "when that traumatic experience is undergone, a woman secretes a certain secretion which has a tendency to kill the sperm."

Under questioning from Rep. Karen Ritter of Allentown during the debate over the abortion control bill signed last Friday by Gov. Robert P. Casey, Freind repeated that assertion.

"Freind, the legislative leader of the potent anti-abortion lobby, quickly drew the wrath of groups that assist rape victims and groups that advocate the pro-choice position on abortion, who said his remarks were insulting to women and demanded an apology."

"The facts show that people who are raped -- who are truly raped -- the juices don't flow, the body functions don't work and they don't get pregnant," said Aldridge, a 71-year-old periodontist. "Medical authorities agree that this is a rarity, if ever."

"What is certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that's physical trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get and stay pregnant a woman's body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain that is easily influenced by emotions. There's no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy. So what further percentage reduction in pregnancy will this cause? No one knows, but this factor certainly cuts this last figure by at least 50 percent and probably more."

What was allegedly said: ""Rep. Steve King told an Iowa reporter he’s never heard of a child getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest.""

What was actually said: "Well I just haven't heard of that being a circumstance that's been brought to me in any personal way, and I'd be open to discussion about that subject matter," he said.

Do you see the difference? One implies that King has never heard of this at all; the other says that he has never had that circumstance brought to him in a personal way, but he is open to discussing such a personal matter.

CJW, my Republican friends are tolerant and social liberals or else they most likely would not be my friends. What I am stressing is that there are MORE of them than social conservatives. I discussed this yesterday, perhaps you didn't see that thread.

And I've said as much to my friends and they nod in agreement. They've also said less than positive things about Democrats and when it resonates, which it does at times, I nod my own head in agreement. STRANGE isn't it how people can come to some consensus?

OK, so there was one protester seen on the news 25 years ago, and then there was a guy nobody has ever heard of from Pennsylvania.

That is hardly "a lot of pro-life people," which you disingenuously are trying to smear the entire movement with.

What you are doing is what the pro-abortion advocates have tried to do "for as long as I can remember."

What pro-lifers do say about abortion and rape is that, of the approximately 1.4 million abortions in this country each year, a relatively small percentage are rape-related. Nevertheless, the pro-abortion lobby routinely uses this small number of cases to justify wide-spread abortion on demand for any reason whatsoever.

Indeed, that was largely the purpose behind the gotcha question that was posed to Akin in the first place.

@purple penguin:Uhm...nope. Don't see much difference between the two statements.

Then you can't read. He says he does not personally know someone to whom that happened. That's not the same thing as saying he doesn't think it ever happened, or that he never heard of the possibility of it having happened.

@Bender:OK, so there was one protester seen on the news 25 years ago, and then there was a guy nobody has ever heard of from Pennsylvania.

No. Join purple penguin's remedial class.

The examples I gave were legislators and activists in the pro-life movement. The third quote was excerpted in the Physicians for Life newsletter. The link I cited contained many other links. You personally may not have heard it but it's happened.

Fling your feces at someone who is actually pro-abortion, not me. I am not part of the pro-choice movement and do not agree with their aims or methods.

You mean the link to a story that references obscure medical texts from hundreds of years ago and uses quotes from people from Britain and pro-choice sources? Again, you are using some tiny examples to leverage them into making broad smears.

And, again, that is the common tactic of the pro-abortion crowd. They take the small number of abortion-related abortions (which the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute has determined in two studies to be no more than one percent of all abortions) and use them as leverage to justify abortion on demand for any and all reasons.